let's talk about accuracy

[lensman57]

It is not just the accuracy figures that are lets say rather ' subjectively ' thrown about. A lot of other aspects of airgun reviewing also leaves a lot to be desired. On the other hand any info is better than no info. All I know is that all the major brands will prove accurate enough over the normal sub 12 gun distances.

A.G

[Murphy]

I got lost in your tales of shooting.

Are you saying a 5p group is good or bad?!

[ballisticboy]

To start with you are not actually talking about accuracy here. Group size is a measure of dispersion, not accuracy, and the two are not the same. By definition (not my definition but the internationally agreed definition) accuracy is the distance of the group centre from the aim point, not the group size. The two are defined differently to distinguish between the effects of deterministic errors ( range errors, average wind speed errors, aiming errors etc.) and non deterministic errors (pellet yaw, muzzle velocity error, wind variability etc.), the latter largly determining group size and the former determining accuracy.
For hunting you need a combination of accuracy and small dispersion to produce precision and a high degree of first round effectiveness. A 5p group of 10 pellets around the aimpoint, fired under all conditions at 30 yards, or any other unknown range, is perfectly acceptable if it can be repeated on three different occasions under different atmospheric conditions.

[cooper_dan]

bobby822, don't beat around the bush, feel free to share some pictures of your trophy cabinet. It must be bursting if you are that good a shot.
I've seen world champion HFT and FT shooters missing 15mm mini kills. By your standards this makes them incompetent....

If I can group within a 5p (18mm) at 35 yards I'm fairly happy with that. And most people should be. I think there's very little room in our sport for telling people they are incompetent if they don't meet some ridiculously high standard of shooting

[Tone]

if it can be repeated on three different occasions under different atmospheric conditions.

nice Ballistic's Boy, very nice

[scimitar]

To start with you are not actually talking about accuracy here. Group size is a measure of dispersion, not accuracy, and the two are not the same. By definition (not my definition but the internationally agreed definition) accuracy is the distance of the group centre from the aim point, not the group size. The two are defined differently to distinguish between the effects of deterministic errors ( range errors, average wind speed errors, aiming errors etc.) and non deterministic errors (pellet yaw, muzzle velocity error, wind variability etc.), the latter largly determining group size and the former determining accuracy.
For hunting you need a combination of accuracy and small dispersion to produce precision and a high degree of first round effectiveness. A 5p group of 10 pellets around the aimpoint, fired under all conditions at 30 yards, or any other unknown range, is perfectly acceptable if it can be repeated on three different occasions under different atmospheric conditions.

Would you mind filling in my tax returns please . as if you cannot baffle em , nobody can . well done that man ??? HOLLY

PS what we need in air gun articles , is what nick jenkinson used to do . show us real world groups at various ranges , out doors . benched . say 25 , 35 . 45 and 55 yards . with the best pellets the reviewer can find in that rifle . not acceptable accuracy . or very good . seeing is believing .

[cooper_dan]

Would you mind filling in my tax returns please . as if you cannot baffle em , nobody can . well done that man ??? HOLLY

PS what we need in air gun articles , is what nick jenkinson used to do . show us real world groups at various ranges , out doors . benched . say 25 , 35 . 45 and 55 yards . with the best pellets the reviewer can find in that rifle . not acceptable accuracy . or very good . seeing is believing .

You might like the HW57 review I'm working on at the moment
8 to 55 yards, outdoors, mix of HFT prone and bench rested

[KeithW]

I have grouped shots sub-5p at 45 yards, outdoors, in "windless" conditions with my HFT 500, my Daystate Mk3 AND my TX200! In fact the 4 shot group I currently brag about measures 8mm edge to edge in one dimension, 3mm in the other (Mk3) However ...

Those groups come after an inordinate amount of practice, pellet search and selection, and determining the best cleaning regime for the particular gun and pellet combination. I'd be shooting prone, rested on a hand which is grasping a peg, as per HFT. However ...

Whilst those groups really look great, we'd be ignoring the 5, 10 or 20 other sets I tried in that session that didn't group so well.

So yes, I can be a hot shot - under perfect conditions. But throw in a competition course set by cunning course-setters who know about range traps and add on a frisky wind, and my scores start heading south PDQ. And as someone else pointed out, as many people have over the years, finding a good scope that suits your eyes (allied to good eyesight) is almost as important as selecting the right pellets.

Other than that ... stop beating up the poor O.P.

And yes, if he's that good, by all means let Terry do an article on him.

[Terry D]

PS what we need in air gun articles , is what nick jenkinson used to do . show us real world groups at various ranges , out doors . benched . say 25 , 35 . 45 and 55 yards . with the best pellets the reviewer can find in that rifle . not acceptable accuracy . or very good . seeing is believing .

There are two main problems with this, as I found out over 30 years of testing. First, timing my work schedule to coincide with acceptable wind conditions out to 55 yards is impossible. Nick's range was accessible in seconds and his committments were a lot more flexible than mine, so as soon as it looked 'right' for a grouping session, he was there. For much of the last couple of years, I've considered myself lucky to have dry conditions, let alone still ones. There's a covered range at my club, but only out to 25 yards, so since my hi-tech chicken ched was condemned, I'm struggling for fully-sheltered range facilities out to 55. Thus, the good groups I put together in the wind rely too much on my ability to apply correct windage to be purely a record of what the rifle can do.

Second, even if I had perfect conditions every time, those groups are going to look boringly similar and the reviews would have four photos in them that would be identical, save for a couple of mm either way. As it stands, I'll usually shoot in the lulls between breezes at 30, 35 and 45 yards, maybe 50 on a perfect day, and if a sub-12 hunting rifle can group well at the longer ranges, I know it will do the job required of it. My system isn't perfect, but in the real world, no system can be. Still, as someone once said, 'it's better than nothing.'

[Terry D]

It is not just the accuracy figures that are lets say rather ' subjectively ' thrown about. A lot of other aspects of airgun reviewing also leaves a lot to be desired.

As ever, all constructive suggestions gratefully received.

[lensman57]

As ever, all constructive suggestions gratefully received.

Regreattably unless the gun was tied to a robotic rig under lab conditions any other suggestion would be futile. The present regime of testing/reviewing is not exactly ' scientific ' but it does provide a reasonable measure of a gun's capability. What concerns me though, is that on many occasions a gun given a good review was shown to be full of ' teething ' problems in the hands of the public, the FX impact sub 12, Kral Puncher Breaker, HW 110 amongst many others. I am by no means suggesting that the review was intentionally favourable but the practice of assigning a few select guns for reviews by the manufacturer does raise questions. Again I say that any information is gratefully recieved and is better than no information.

A.G

[bobby822]

Regreattably unless the gun was tied to a robotic rig under lab conditions any other suggestion would be futile. The present regime of testing/reviewing is not exactly ' scientific ' but it does provide a reasonable measure of a gun's capability. What concerns me though, is that on many occasions a gun given a good review was shown to be full of ' teething ' problems in the hands of the public, the FX impact sub 12, Kral Puncher Breaker, HW 110 amongst many others. I am by no means suggesting that the review was intentionally favourable but the practice of assigning a few select guns for reviews by the manufacturer does raise questions. Again I say that any information is gratefully recieved and is better than no information.

A.G

can't agree more

[Terry D]

... the practice of assigning a few select guns for reviews by the manufacturer does raise questions.

You can choose to accept this or not, AG, but I have never known this to be the case. I test most of the new guns and I've toured many factories many times, but I've never known there to be a batch of guns specifically assigned for testing. It sounds like it should happen, but in my experience, it doesn't. Just saying.

[lensman57]

You can choose to accept this or not, AG, but I have never known this to be the case. I test most of the new guns and I've toured many factories many times, but I've never known there to be a batch of guns specifically assigned for testing. It sounds like it should happen, but in my experience, it doesn't. Just saying.

I have never douted your statements sir but I have seen ' review ' guns in the hands of others that have been full of scratch to the stock meaning that the guns had been going around. For what its worth and I am not just saying this, I do take your reviews very seriously as it is obvious that a process of evaluation is being carried out and it shows in the text of the magazine but this is by no means a universal practice.

A.G

[Terry D]

I have never douted your statements sir but I have seen ' review ' guns in the hands of others that have been full of scratch to the stock meaning that the guns had been going around.

Or that they'd been used as demo guns at shows. Yes, really. Several major companies have sent me rifles to test that made their debuts at shows. The first HW100 I tested was an ex-demo rifle. Yes, some rifles may go from tester to tester, but they're not specially prepared; the company simply doesn't want to have another rifle it can't sell.